Bikes and riders are small, kinda slow moving, and much harder to see than cars. The lights they generally have( generally none, and rarely a brake light, and they almost never have lights as visible as a car's) just aren't very good.They are obviously more dangerous to ride per mile than a car. Bike lanes are a great partial solution; car drivers know they are to stay out of the bike lane(except at intersections), and if they are aware of the bike lanes(how couldn't they be) they know to expect bike riders to come squirting out on the right at intersections.

Any VC advocate who would prefer "educating drivers" that bike riders deserve a full lane(to ride 15 mph on a 35mph street) is a fool. Cars, trucks, buses etc are much, much more important than bikes. If it is a choice between bikes and cars, it will be an easy choice for voters(who ultimately decide these issues). We-bike riders-will be shunted to just a few streets-streets we will still have to share with cars.

We should all push for bike lanes on the major arteries, and lanes on as many minor streets as possible.

The numbers posted above clearly show that bike lanes are safer than no lanes. Only wrong headed fools would not want a lane where car access is restricted-cars are too big and too fast to safely share streets in the USA.Voters will never agree to let a tiny minority of 15 mph vehicles dictate the speed of travel on 35-45 mph streets. Why should they? Hey, why have sidewalks; why not just let pedestrians walk in the middle of the street??? The cars can just wait!!
Thanks,
Charlie
Charlie